House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 45% of the vote.
Intergovernmental Relations May 25th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister explain in a satisfactory manner why his government and himself, who yesterday boasted of his determination to solve the unemployment problem, are still, after several months of negotiations, totally unable to sign with Quebec an agreement that would save $250 million a year in waste and better serve the jobless?
Intergovernmental Relations May 25th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, after their conference last week, the Western premiers asked for the transfer of federal powers to the provinces in several areas, including telecommunications and manpower, thus echoing Quebec's demands.
Does the Prime Minister admit that the western Premiers' requests show once again that there is a serious responsibility--
sharing problem in Canada and that the political structure is no longer adequate as it leads to costly and inefficient overlap and duplication?
Quebec's Right To Self-Determination May 24th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not realize that with this answer, which is sort of a veiled threat, he maintains the ambiguity resulting from the irresponsible statement made by his Minister of Indian Affairs? Can he tell us if he really knows the principle of international law which provides that when a state becomes sovereign, it does so with its whole territory? Does the Prime Minister know that principle?
Quebec's Right To Self-Determination May 24th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs said that Quebec's natives could remain in Canada if the province decides to become a sovereign state. The Minister of Foreign Affairs then stated that the Minister of Indian Affairs should retract his comments, while the Prime Minister tried to avoid the issue and justify the statement made by his Minister of Indian Affairs.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the head of the Canadian government recognize the principle of territorial integrity for Quebec, whether that province chooses to remain part of Confederation or become independent? Does he recognize that principle?
Business Of The House May 12th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, as is the custom, at this point I would like to ask the hon. Leader of the Government in the House to tell us what is on the agenda, not for the next few days but, rather, for the weeks to come.
Indian Affairs May 12th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Indian Affairs not realize that by interfering in this matter instead of contributing to its resolution, he is in fact inflaming an already tense situation between the Mohawks and the Quebec government? Does he not realize that?
Indian Affairs May 12th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, referring to the dispute between the Quebec government and Mohawks in Kanesatake over the collection of gas taxes, the Minister of Indian Affairs stated it might not be a bad idea for Mohawks to go to court to resolve their conflict with Quebec that has shut down gas stations on their reserves.
How can the Minister of Indian Affairs, in his capacity as a responsible member of the federal government, incite people to attack the validity of legislation falling under the jurisdiction of the Quebec government?
Telecommunications May 11th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, does that mean that the minister intend to rely on the fact that communications are under federal jurisdiction to negotiate only minor details of no consequence with Quebec, when he is fully aware that what is at stake here is Quebec's cultural development as a whole?
Telecommunications May 11th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, in spite of the Supreme Court decision, Quebec intends to maintain its Régie des télécommunications and is asking the federal government to delegate appropriate regulatory powers to the province. Speaking on that issue, the Quebec Minister of Communications said that the current situation clearly illustrates the inadequacy of the Canadian constitutional framework as regards communications.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Does the federal government intend to legislate and delegate the powers of the CRTC to Quebec's Régie des télécommunications, as requested by the Quebec Minister of Communications?
Pearson International Airport Agreements Act May 9th, 1994
Yes. That is what they are doing, Mr. Speaker, except that a small, a very small clause in this bill gives the minister in charge all discretionary powers to pay financial compensation according to his own evaluation of the harm done to the one losing the contract.
They propose a bill seemingly with the best of intentions, but if by chance you examine that bill further, if you analyze the situation thoroughly, you discover some hidden truths that are not very edifying.
Friends of the Liberals, Liberal lobbyists, friends of the people in place have taken over that issue and now, beyond political parties, one can see in the Canadian financial world that some politically diverging financial interests are coincidentally linked to the same group of companies, the same group of persons.
Now the government is asking us to terminate the contract for Pearson Airport and we want to be part of that, but the way this cancellation is being done is totally unacceptable. Here we have an unhoped-for opportunity to pass a law on lobbyists, to clarify the relationship that should exist between the government and professional lobbyists who intervene in that kind of case, but the Prime Minister will not seize it. He had promised a law on that question, he had promised to clarify the lobbyist issue, but all of the sudden it is out of the question.
The second thing is that the ministers are giving themselves an unacceptable discretionary power, which will allow them to give, from time to time, compensation that they consider appropriate. We can see that in many different ways. The minister responsible will be able to decide who deserves compensation, how much and for what prejudice. This is a much too general discretionary power, when one considers that the compensation is going to go to people who are, I remind you, financing the activities of the party across the floor.
Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the kind of conflict of interest situation that minister is going to be in, considering that, for the survival of his party he must also raise money? He will have to negotiate on his own-that is without guidelines-and determine by himself the amount of compensation.
This is unacceptable. I still have a minute, Mr. Speaker. If it is true that these people are full of good intentions, why is the government steadfastly refusing a public inquiry on the circumstances surrounding the Pearson Airport deal? If its hands are clean, which I am willing to believe, Mr. Speaker, since I do not assume it is ill-intentioned, if it has good intentions and did note enough irregularities or faults in that deal to warrant a bill cancelling the transaction, considering what it implies, if it is ready to give ministers the discretionary power to compensate those affected by the cancellation, if the question of the Pearson Airport is really that serious, there is only one question remaining: Why does it object to a public inquiry which would shed light on the whole deal? The question begs an answer and it is up to the government to give it.